How can the US ever pay off its federal debts while maintaining a massive deficit budget?
The deficit that's lower than it's been in years and shrinks every month? Our economy grows us out of deficit every time. If we'd just stop doing stupid things like the prescription drug program and bridges to nowhere, we'd be better off...
The crash is coming, are you prepared?
The economy always moves in cycles. WHEN (not if) it does go back down, the drop will cull the weak and encourage new lines of investment and innovation, making us come back even stronger than ever. The Dot Bomb implosion was an excellent example of that. Now the big buzzword companies on the Internet are actually making money other than venture capital.
China is currently propping up the US dollar (buying it), and loaning the US billions of dollars,
Which means it's in their best interests for us to succeed, otherwise they never get their money back.
while continuing to create a larger trade deficit for the US.
Do you ever worry about your trade deficit with your grocer?
and the net loss in wealth for the average American will make it very difficult for anyone to plan a way to pay off their own credit card debts,
Net loss in wealth? Meh? We're above full employment, wages are going up, inflation is staying down, wtf world are you living in?
It's time to balance the federal budget.
I agree. Let's dismantle HUD and the Medicare prescription drug program first. That'll put us a few hundred billion in the black by itself.
Nevertheless, people play with very distinct and consistant personalities that are often quite different from their "real life" personality.
You know, there's definitely some truth to this. But I think in some ways they're less roleplaying and more allowing themselves to express some part of their personality that's more repressed. I, for instance, really do like helping people. It's why I've volunteered several times for positions involved in teaching/tutoring while a graduate student. I love seeing people accomplish something, especially when I was able to help them do it somehow. Unfortunately I don't get to do this much as most of my time as a GA has been in research positions. I still do get in trouble for helping with other people's projects more than I've worked on my own, however...:) For some reason when I started WoW I rolled a Priest. I've been playing since beta, and I've always been Holy spec (even when it sucked). I get a kick out of seeing people succeed, and I will go out of my way to help anyone who truly needs help. For the past eight years now I've worked in one form of government job or another (before I started my Master's, I was a PC tech in a local government). I hate bureaucracy and I hate having to take crap day in and out and not be able to do or say anything about it. In WoW I don't put up with anyone's stupidity, because I don't have to. I can tell people when they're being stupid, or greedy, or unfair. They don't like it? Tough, they can get another healer. I've reoutfitted "newbies" completely with tailored gear and/or enchants after adventuring with them and finding out they're enthusiastic, polite, and fair. Nothing beats the feeling of showing someone some unexpected kindness. I've also stood by and watched people die who were miserly, rude, and greedy. That's a whole different kind of pleasure. And after a long day of kissing bureaucrat butt, if I find myself needing more of that pleasure, well that's what a warlock is for...:) In the end, yes, people do play a persona in an MMORPG generally. This persona often does not represent the game character they're playing, but some facet of their personality instead. This is not unique to MMORPGs. I doubt the Goatse spammers you see on here go around mumbling incoherent rants and flashing pictures of hyperextended assholes at people (if only, then they'd be locked up away from the rest of us). We all wear masks in our daily lives to fit in with society, and online those masks are much less necessary. An online persona, whether in a game or on a message board, is obviously a different character than who a person is in real life... But which one is a play, and which one is closer to the truth? Is it more fun to pretend to be someone else (And believe me, I love a good game of D&D as much as anyone else), or is it more fun to have a chance to really be yourself? If I had to choose between pretending and being honest for the rest of my life, I'd rather choose the latter. I think that's why so many peoples' personality changes so much when they're put in the context of an online community. And why griefers and spammers should be strung up by their own intestines. Because deep down inside they really are bad people.:P
lot of companies have role playing servers, but it's never really given serious support
From what I've seen of WoW's roleplaying servers, they seem more designed to keep the "roleplayers" away from the rest of us than anything else. That's the right amount of support for me.
(Disclaimer: I'm a tabletop gamer, I love RPGs, but "roleplayers" in MMOs generally aren't.)
Yes, it is not great enough to be measured with the 400 years of hurricane history we have to look at. That's the point, these recent hurricane seasons are not out of the acceptable range of what we've seen before.
Declaring a state of emergency does not equal requesting Federal help. She even admitted on camera that "I should have asked for troops". I actually worked in the government during Katrina and I watched everything happen from the inside. Not only was Federal help not requested, but people showing up to offer help were turned away, including a Flotilla of ~150 boats from my hometown who tried to volunteer to help rescue people off their roofs. They were turned away by the DWF (which makes no sense) and told "Everything is in hand, we don't need any further help."
Thankfully some of them ignored DWF and snuck around them to help w/ rescuing...
"Higher-than-expected tax receipts and the steadily growing economy have combined to produce an improved picture for the federal budget deficit, congressional analysts said yesterday." - Federal budget deficit expected to shrink 7/8/2005
"The Treasury Department reported Monday that the deficit for the budget year that began Oct. 1 totals $42.2 billion, down 57.2% from the same period a year ago." - Federal deficit shrinks due to record tax collections 2/12/2007
"The Treasury Department said that the deficit through May totaled $148.5 billion, down 34.6 percent from the same period a year ago." - Federal Deficit Continues To Drop 6/12/2007
Of course the fact that the budget deficit is shrinking as revenues go up doesn't fit very well with people's argument that the tax cuts should be rescinded, so they put their fingers in their ears and keep claiming otherwise...
The economy is booming. The Federal government is making more money than it's ever made before. When you let people keep their money, they use it to make more money. If not for them, then for someone else.
That is what Mayor Nagin said and the Governor admitted herself when she thought the cameras were turned off. Did the Feds screw up? Sure. But nothing compared to how badly my state borked the whole thing.
Except the "radical right" hasn't been in power since at least January and the "Newer, Lefter, Leaner" Congress we have now hasn't felt it to be a funding priority, either. This isn't a right vs. left thing, it's a "I can't tell my constituents I'm bringing them buckets of money if I fund this" thing. No congresscritter is going to get behind this unless he/she can be guaranteed the Satellite will be built by a company in their area. And that's a lot of money and huge lead up time, to boot.
Satellites don't just appear out of thin air. They have to be designed and built and tested and put onto a launch schedule. With NASA's already anemic budget being mostly eaten up by the money pit of the ISS to keep the Russians afloat and NOAA having huge commitments all over the place (Do you know how many programs and areas of responsibility NOAA has? It's staggering.) I imagine Congress just thinks it's cheaper to pay the cost of evacuating more people over the next ten years than pay the large upfront cost for getting a new satellite out NOW. That's the same reason the levee system in New Orleans was never improved, funnily enough. Congress decided it wasn't worth billions of dollars to prepare for a "once in 200 years" event. If it'll only happen once in 200 years, then you can stretch out the monetary damages over that time period as well (in theory). Preparing for a category 5 storm just isn't worth the cost.
The satellites had nothing to do with embarrassing anyone over Katrina. What's embarrassing is that my damn governor refused Federal help and let people die in their homes. Which (combined with the hugely incompetent recovery effort) is why she isn't running for re-election.
And yet that was the seventeenth storm that we know of that happened before the start of hurricane season. The current hurricane cycle is the same cycle we've been observing since we've started recording these things. The effect of ocean warming, if there is an effect, on hurricane intensity/frequency is currently not great enough to be measured.
I find it somewhat disturbing that a corporation is allowed to decide how I interact with my community - especially if that interaction does not interfere with local zoning ordinances or the criminal code.
I find it amusing how often I see the pattern of "I find it disturbing blah blah CORPORATION blah blah" comes up in these conversations (apparently it makes you look like a cool civil libertarian or something). In this case the corporation can do no such thing. They can simply decide they don't want you on their property anymore, which is what they did. You have no right to be on someone else's property.
I find it even more disturbing that you advocate not challenging them in court - presumably because I stand no chance of competing with their deep pockets and pre-paid lawyers (and I'd agree with that recommendation).
No, I advocate not challenging them in court because:
1) You should always strive to stay out of a courtroom at all costs. All it takes is a cooky judge or and cooky jury and all the sudden your whole life has been destroyed.
2) The judge would kindly tell you "Yes, you are correct that they cannot tell you what not to write on your blog. I encourage you to write to your heart's content. However, they did not tell you that you could not write on your blog, only that you would not be welcome in their event while doing so. You have a right to freedom of speech, you do not have a right to be at a basketball game." and send you packing. If you're unlucky, you might end up paying legal bills (see: point 1).
What happens when the normal way of redressing injustices is not accessible to the general population?
Well that's what the second amendment is for, but I digress...
Finally, I'd argue that the NCAA is not interested if anyone else makes money off of their events - they're far more interested in protecting their existing revenue streams.
Considering those revenue streams pay for the athletic programs at Universities I'd think they could be honestly accused of dereliction of their duty for NOT doing so. The money the NCAA makes helps institutes of higher learning pay for things. This is a Good Thing. I fail to see why people are so against other people making money... Especially when (in this case) that money can eventually end up helping some kid go to college.
All you're going on is opinions and biases. There's nothing in the law that requires the NCAA to allow someone to remain in their venue engaging in live reporting of a game. The first amendment doesn't protect the location of your speech, just whether or not you're allowed to speak. Live-blogging is journalism. The NCAA can control attendance of journalists to their events. You're just trying to argue ad nauseum that someone's non-existent rights are being violated.
What happens if the email is sent to multiple recipients? Posted on a forum? A blog? Comes with video? Where do you draw the line? That's the point of the article - if you can get ejected over blogging a live game, can you get ejected for emailing others about it? Talking to your friends about it? Conference calling other people in?
Well as I pointed out in another post, that is a grey area. But the NCAA decides that, not you. If you don't like their decision you can challenge it in court, but I wouldn't suggest it. And I think a very easy way to draw the line is when you're making money off such reporting (which the Courier-Journal does).
The guy next to me is shouting a play-by-play into his cellphone, affecting the enjoyment of a game I paid to be at. I complain, he is warned and then ejected if he continues.
A ticket gets you into the game. My buddy is not at the game. He has not received the benefit of buying a ticket and has not bought one. Seems fair to me.
Well it's not up to you. It's up to the person hosting the event.
You still haven't explained how it's not stupid.
Burden of proof. The onus is not on me to prove it's not stupid--a negative cannot proven. You must instead show proof that it is stupid.
What is it like to automatically accept the status quo as though that's how it should be?
Ad hominem. What's it like to automatically challenge the status quo as though the fact that it exists means it should be destroyed?
I don't. But that's only because I don't see the point of watching a bunch of millionaires running around playing with their various balls.
And with this one comment you have proven how completely ignorant you are of what you're speaking. Thank you.
And as far as I'm concerned the NCAA can go jump off a cliff WRT that policy. I can understand the right to control broadcasts with video, but as far as I care they have no right to say that you are not allowed to say what is happening. They do not own what is happening and they do not own what I write, so screw them, and any courts which support this.
So your argument comes down to "I think they're poopieheads"? Good luck with that.
The problem is that the logical conclusion of this approach is that anyone electronically disseminating an account of an event like this opens him/herself up to litigation for breach of contract, TOS, EULA or whatever else is in play.
No. There was not a moratorium on blogging about the game AFTER it was over. There was a moratorium on blogging on the game WHILE you were THERE. Just like a newspaper reporter would publish his article after the game was over, an evening sports newscaster would go over the game highlights later that night, etc.
This means that preventing someone with official press credentials from live-casting, blogging, vlogging (or via any other lexical abomination) an event only means that that person will try to do so without press credentials next - because the press credentials make no difference to the end-product.
There is a difference, one doesn't have to pay for a press pass. People with press passes also generally get to do/see more than the general public. And if someone was caught live-blogging NCAA events without a press pass, I'm sure they'd be similarly ejected (after being warned to stop).
And what exactly is it that *gives* them that insane level of control over something that they do not and can not legitimately own? Oh, that would be the government. I'm not saying it absolutely is a first amendment issue, but you have failed to demonstrate that it isn't. The only reason they can even claim to have such far overreaching powers is due to the government granting them that monopoly power. If you're claiming it is not a first amendment issue, then you'll have to address that.
The government cannot bestow rights upon an individual or a corporation. Rights either exist or they don't. Governments can choose whether or not to enforce rights, however. But that is their primary (and in the end, only just) purpose, to ENFORCE and PROTECT rights. In this case the NCAA has a Copyright on broadcasting of their games. They can choose to license or not license that right as they see fit. It's theirs. There's nothing in the first amendment that says they have to let you sit in the stands and report on their games if they don't want you there. That has nothing to do with the government bestowing any monopoly power upon them. It's THEIR game. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
But as he failed to point out, those who are currently playing by the rules aren't considered legitimate journalists by reasonable people any longer. They are, in fact, one of the biggest parts of the problem. They are corporate/government shills and nothing more. We need actual legitimate journalists who do not play by the rules more than just about anything at this point in time
You should try visiting reality sometime. Journalists can write about whatever they wish, but they do not get a free license to be wherever they wish when they do this. This is the purpose of a press pass; it's a way for an entity to tell and individual "We recognize the contribution your reporting on this event will add to society and as such we are giving you the ability to view it freely and report on it afterwards." This does not make someone a corporate shill, it simply allows them access that they otherwise would have to pay for (or even in some cases could NOT pay for, as evidenced by my experience w/ Press badges at GDC). This is being done as a FAVOR to the journalist, not as some mercenary contract. If the journalist chooses to spit on such kindness, then they can report on the event from outside.
Yes, so if he wanted to copy and paste scores onto his blog from his home computer they probably couldn't get him. But they could still eject him from the game for doing it in the stands. At the end of the day they may not be able to force him to remove either case from his blog once it's posted, but they don't have to let him sit in one of their seats. Especially one they gave him.
No. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming FIRST AMENDMENT over and over again in hopes that it will suddenly become true. He can exercise his first amendment rights elsewhere all he wants. If blogging is journalism, then it operates under the same rules as any other form of journalism. Broadcasting involves widely disseminating information, which blogging obviously does. Yes the traditional definition of broadcast refers to television/radio stations, but before that it referred only to radio and TV broadcasts over the air (and was expanded to cover cable television), and even before that it referred just to small spark-gap transmitters held by private individuals. Definitions update themselves with the times, and posting (near) real-time descriptions of a game are as much broadcasting as a commentator speaking a blow-by-blow into a microphone or a typist providing real-time closed captions for a television broadcast. The endpoint device for the data doesn't change that.
Depending on which definition of broadcasting you use, yes. Even the definitions that specifically mention radio or television could be weaseled in since technically he's using a radio signal to report from the game. But within the spirit of the definition, definitely. It involves widely disseminating some form of information.
Also, if blogging wants to be taken seriously as journalism, then it especially should fall in the realm of broadcasting.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, there's definitely some truth to this. But I think in some ways they're less roleplaying and more allowing themselves to express some part of their personality that's more repressed. I, for instance, really do like helping people. It's why I've volunteered several times for positions involved in teaching/tutoring while a graduate student. I love seeing people accomplish something, especially when I was able to help them do it somehow. Unfortunately I don't get to do this much as most of my time as a GA has been in research positions. I still do get in trouble for helping with other people's projects more than I've worked on my own, however...
For some reason when I started WoW I rolled a Priest. I've been playing since beta, and I've always been Holy spec (even when it sucked). I get a kick out of seeing people succeed, and I will go out of my way to help anyone who truly needs help. For the past eight years now I've worked in one form of government job or another (before I started my Master's, I was a PC tech in a local government). I hate bureaucracy and I hate having to take crap day in and out and not be able to do or say anything about it. In WoW I don't put up with anyone's stupidity, because I don't have to. I can tell people when they're being stupid, or greedy, or unfair. They don't like it? Tough, they can get another healer. I've reoutfitted "newbies" completely with tailored gear and/or enchants after adventuring with them and finding out they're enthusiastic, polite, and fair. Nothing beats the feeling of showing someone some unexpected kindness. I've also stood by and watched people die who were miserly, rude, and greedy. That's a whole different kind of pleasure. And after a long day of kissing bureaucrat butt, if I find myself needing more of that pleasure, well that's what a warlock is for...
In the end, yes, people do play a persona in an MMORPG generally. This persona often does not represent the game character they're playing, but some facet of their personality instead. This is not unique to MMORPGs. I doubt the Goatse spammers you see on here go around mumbling incoherent rants and flashing pictures of hyperextended assholes at people (if only, then they'd be locked up away from the rest of us). We all wear masks in our daily lives to fit in with society, and online those masks are much less necessary. An online persona, whether in a game or on a message board, is obviously a different character than who a person is in real life... But which one is a play, and which one is closer to the truth?
Is it more fun to pretend to be someone else (And believe me, I love a good game of D&D as much as anyone else), or is it more fun to have a chance to really be yourself? If I had to choose between pretending and being honest for the rest of my life, I'd rather choose the latter. I think that's why so many peoples' personality changes so much when they're put in the context of an online community.
And why griefers and spammers should be strung up by their own intestines. Because deep down inside they really are bad people.
From what I've seen of WoW's roleplaying servers, they seem more designed to keep the "roleplayers" away from the rest of us than anything else. That's the right amount of support for me.
(Disclaimer: I'm a tabletop gamer, I love RPGs, but "roleplayers" in MMOs generally aren't.)
Yes, it is not great enough to be measured with the 400 years of hurricane history we have to look at. That's the point, these recent hurricane seasons are not out of the acceptable range of what we've seen before.
Declaring a state of emergency does not equal requesting Federal help. She even admitted on camera that "I should have asked for troops".
I actually worked in the government during Katrina and I watched everything happen from the inside. Not only was Federal help not requested, but people showing up to offer help were turned away, including a Flotilla of ~150 boats from my hometown who tried to volunteer to help rescue people off their roofs. They were turned away by the DWF (which makes no sense) and told "Everything is in hand, we don't need any further help."
Thankfully some of them ignored DWF and snuck around them to help w/ rescuing...
Were you linking to a 404 message to be funny?
"Higher-than-expected tax receipts and the steadily growing economy have combined to produce an improved picture for the federal budget deficit, congressional analysts said yesterday." - Federal budget deficit expected to shrink 7/8/2005
"The Treasury Department reported Monday that the deficit for the budget year that began Oct. 1 totals $42.2 billion, down 57.2% from the same period a year ago." - Federal deficit shrinks due to record tax collections
2/12/2007
"The Treasury Department said that the deficit through May totaled $148.5 billion, down 34.6 percent from the same period a year ago." - Federal Deficit Continues To Drop 6/12/2007
Of course the fact that the budget deficit is shrinking as revenues go up doesn't fit very well with people's argument that the tax cuts should be rescinded, so they put their fingers in their ears and keep claiming otherwise...
The economy is booming. The Federal government is making more money than it's ever made before. When you let people keep their money, they use it to make more money. If not for them, then for someone else.
There's no sarcasm tags because I'm serious. Look below, someone asked me for my data and I will post it.
That is what Mayor Nagin said and the Governor admitted herself when she thought the cameras were turned off. Did the Feds screw up? Sure. But nothing compared to how badly my state borked the whole thing.
Except the "radical right" hasn't been in power since at least January and the "Newer, Lefter, Leaner" Congress we have now hasn't felt it to be a funding priority, either. This isn't a right vs. left thing, it's a "I can't tell my constituents I'm bringing them buckets of money if I fund this" thing. No congresscritter is going to get behind this unless he/she can be guaranteed the Satellite will be built by a company in their area. And that's a lot of money and huge lead up time, to boot.
Except the deficit has been shrinking as federal revenue skyrockets since the tax cuts have been passed...
Satellites don't just appear out of thin air. They have to be designed and built and tested and put onto a launch schedule. With NASA's already anemic budget being mostly eaten up by the money pit of the ISS to keep the Russians afloat and NOAA having huge commitments all over the place (Do you know how many programs and areas of responsibility NOAA has? It's staggering.) I imagine Congress just thinks it's cheaper to pay the cost of evacuating more people over the next ten years than pay the large upfront cost for getting a new satellite out NOW. That's the same reason the levee system in New Orleans was never improved, funnily enough. Congress decided it wasn't worth billions of dollars to prepare for a "once in 200 years" event. If it'll only happen once in 200 years, then you can stretch out the monetary damages over that time period as well (in theory). Preparing for a category 5 storm just isn't worth the cost.
The satellites had nothing to do with embarrassing anyone over Katrina. What's embarrassing is that my damn governor refused Federal help and let people die in their homes. Which (combined with the hugely incompetent recovery effort) is why she isn't running for re-election.
And yet that was the seventeenth storm that we know of that happened before the start of hurricane season. The current hurricane cycle is the same cycle we've been observing since we've started recording these things. The effect of ocean warming, if there is an effect, on hurricane intensity/frequency is currently not great enough to be measured.
Mostly just to piss people like you off.
All you're going on is opinions and biases. There's nothing in the law that requires the NCAA to allow someone to remain in their venue engaging in live reporting of a game. The first amendment doesn't protect the location of your speech, just whether or not you're allowed to speak. Live-blogging is journalism. The NCAA can control attendance of journalists to their events. You're just trying to argue ad nauseum that someone's non-existent rights are being violated.
Well as I pointed out in another post, that is a grey area. But the NCAA decides that, not you. If you don't like their decision you can challenge it in court, but I wouldn't suggest it. And I think a very easy way to draw the line is when you're making money off such reporting (which the Courier-Journal does).
So your argument comes down to "I think they're poopieheads"? Good luck with that.
You're correct. They can't stop you. But they don't have to let you sit in the stadium while you do it.
See what I did there?
No. There was not a moratorium on blogging about the game AFTER it was over. There was a moratorium on blogging on the game WHILE you were THERE. Just like a newspaper reporter would publish his article after the game was over, an evening sports newscaster would go over the game highlights later that night, etc.
There is a difference, one doesn't have to pay for a press pass. People with press passes also generally get to do/see more than the general public. And if someone was caught live-blogging NCAA events without a press pass, I'm sure they'd be similarly ejected (after being warned to stop).
The government cannot bestow rights upon an individual or a corporation. Rights either exist or they don't. Governments can choose whether or not to enforce rights, however. But that is their primary (and in the end, only just) purpose, to ENFORCE and PROTECT rights. In this case the NCAA has a Copyright on broadcasting of their games. They can choose to license or not license that right as they see fit. It's theirs. There's nothing in the first amendment that says they have to let you sit in the stands and report on their games if they don't want you there. That has nothing to do with the government bestowing any monopoly power upon them. It's THEIR game. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
You should try visiting reality sometime. Journalists can write about whatever they wish, but they do not get a free license to be wherever they wish when they do this. This is the purpose of a press pass; it's a way for an entity to tell and individual "We recognize the contribution your reporting on this event will add to society and as such we are giving you the ability to view it freely and report on it afterwards." This does not make someone a corporate shill, it simply allows them access that they otherwise would have to pay for (or even in some cases could NOT pay for, as evidenced by my experience w/ Press badges at GDC). This is being done as a FAVOR to the journalist, not as some mercenary contract. If the journalist chooses to spit on such kindness, then they can report on the event from outside.
As I've said to many people today: Get a life.
Yes, so if he wanted to copy and paste scores onto his blog from his home computer they probably couldn't get him. But they could still eject him from the game for doing it in the stands. At the end of the day they may not be able to force him to remove either case from his blog once it's posted, but they don't have to let him sit in one of their seats. Especially one they gave him.
No. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming FIRST AMENDMENT over and over again in hopes that it will suddenly become true. He can exercise his first amendment rights elsewhere all he wants. If blogging is journalism, then it operates under the same rules as any other form of journalism. Broadcasting involves widely disseminating information, which blogging obviously does. Yes the traditional definition of broadcast refers to television/radio stations, but before that it referred only to radio and TV broadcasts over the air (and was expanded to cover cable television), and even before that it referred just to small spark-gap transmitters held by private individuals. Definitions update themselves with the times, and posting (near) real-time descriptions of a game are as much broadcasting as a commentator speaking a blow-by-blow into a microphone or a typist providing real-time closed captions for a television broadcast. The endpoint device for the data doesn't change that.
Depending on which definition of broadcasting you use, yes. Even the definitions that specifically mention radio or television could be weaseled in since technically he's using a radio signal to report from the game. But within the spirit of the definition, definitely. It involves widely disseminating some form of information.
Also, if blogging wants to be taken seriously as journalism, then it especially should fall in the realm of broadcasting.